VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P2245/2015
Permit Application no. TPA/42980

CATCHWORDS

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; double storey development; building bulk; building setbacks; landscaping; garage size; storage; amenity.
APPLICANT / Darina Kurali
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 420 Huntingdale Road, Oakleigh South
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Frank Dawson, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 4 April 2016
DATE OF ORDER / 6 June 2016
CITATION / Kurali v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 817

Order

1  Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:

Darina Kurali

2  Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

·  Prepared by: Insite Architects.
·  Drawing numbers: TP04 – TP08 inclusive, all Revision 1.
·  Dated: 14/2/2016.

1  The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

2  In permit application TPA/42980 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 420 Huntingdale Road Oakleigh South in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in the Appendix to this order. The permit allows the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2).

Frank Dawson
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Mr Joel Fredman, town planner of Fredman Malina Planning Pty Ltd.
For Responsible Authority / Ms Sally Moser, town planner of Moser Planning Services Pty Ltd.

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / Construction of three double storey dwellings. Dwellings 1 and 3 each contain three bedrooms. Dwelling 2 contains two bedrooms. Vehicle parking is provided in the form of a single garage with tandem car space behind dwelling 1, a single garage behind dwelling 2 and a double garage at the end of the driveway for dwelling 3. The proposed design has a single driveway along the south side of the lot.
The proposed dwellings have external materials of face brickwork on the ground floor, rendered lightweight cladding on the first floor and each dwelling has a separate hipped, colorbond roof.
Nature of Proceeding / Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.
Zone and Overlays / General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (GRZ2).
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4 (a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot).
Land Description / The subject land is located on the eastern side of Huntingdale Road, opposite the Huntingdale Golf Club, approximately 500 metres north of Centre Road and 1,200 metres south of the Huntingdale Railway Station near North Road in Oakleigh South.
The land is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 17.7 metres, a depth of 47.74 metres and an area of approximately 811 square metres. The land has a fall of 1.2 metres from east to west and a 1.83 metres wide easement along and within the rear boundary.
The land contains a single storey timber dwelling. There is no significant vegetation on the site. The land is one of a group of eight lots surrounded by generally open land – a former extraction site to the east and south, a recreation reserve to the north and the Huntingdale Golf Club to the west. The residential properties immediately to the north and south contain single detached dwellings. The property two doors to the south at number 426 Huntingdale Road contains three recently constructed double storey dwellings in a configuration similar to that proposed on the subject land.
Tribunal Inspection / The Tribunal conducted an inspection of the subject land and surrounding area.

REASONS[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  This proceeding concerns a request to the Tribunal from the permit applicant to review a decision by Monash City Council to refuse[2] a planning permit for the construction of three double storey dwellings in the General Residential Zone at 420 Huntingdale Road Oakleigh South.

2  Council's grounds for refusing the application are:

  1. The proposal is not consistent with the residential development and character policy at clause 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme with regard to built form, scale of development and landscaping.
  2. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme in terms of residential character, landscaping, detailed design and private open space.
  3. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on general neighbourhood character and adjoining properties having regard to mass and visual bulk.

3  The permit applicant submits:

The proposal represents an appropriate development in this particular location; it will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of immediately adjoining residents, and is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, including State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.

4  I consider the questions to be determined in deciding this matter are:

·  Does the proposed development respect existing neighbourhood character?

·  Does the proposed design provide an acceptable response to the relevant objectives and standards of ResCode at Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme?

·  Will the proposal result in unacceptable detriment to the amenity of surrounding residents?

5  The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council decision and grant a permit. My reasons follow.

Does the proposed development respect existing neighbourhood character?

6  The General Residential Zone (GRZ) encourages new development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. In this case, the immediate character is defined by established dwellings, generally single storey, with some new multi-dwelling development. The character of the area is further defined by an arterial road location, the openness of the Huntingdale Golf Club and the large area of vacant land to the east.

7  The area is undergoing change, evident from the recent three dwelling development to the south. The Tribunal also understands the vacant land to the east is proposed for an extensive housing development, although the Tribunal is not aware of the design detail.

8  The process of change is supported within the GRZ, which has the purpose:

To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

9  In this case, the subject land has excellent access to schools and open space, and good access to regional shopping facilities at Oakleigh, Bentleigh and Chadstone. Bus services appear limited along this section of Huntingdale Road, perhaps due to the extent of open space.

10  The subject site is included in Residential Character Type B, described at Clause 21.04 (Residential Development) as:

Character derived from 1945-1965 development, flat topography and a grid subdivision pattern.

11  The content of the Monash Urban Character Study dates from 1997, and is therefore somewhat dated, however, the properties along this part of Huntingdale Road reflect the character description. Existing older dwellings are generally brick or weatherboard in construction, are generally well maintained, have modest front gardens and some canopy trees. Street trees are also prominent. Extensive sheds and garages are present in a number of the backyard spaces within this group of eight lots, including either side of the subject land.

12  The Residential Development and Character Policy at Clause 22.0 describes the ‘Garden City Character’ sought to be achieved in Monash as a;

..core value held by the community and Council as a significant and important consideration in all land use and development decisions in most residential areas.

13  The landscaping policy refers to the planting of canopy trees in front setback and open space areas, including down both sides of driveways. The proposed design allows sufficient space to respond to this policy, however, the depiction of the landscaping on the plans is only representative, without any definition or landscape design input. I note that Council’s draft conditions prepared in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Note PNPE2 includes a requirement for a landscape plan, including widened planting beds along the driveway and a reduction in the area of decking in the seclude private open space areas to accommodate landscaping. I find these are relevant considerations in my assessment of this proposal and I have included permit conditions that require space for a canopy tree in each secluded private open space area, which has the implication of reducing the size of the proposed decks. I consider there is also ample opportunity for appropriate landscaping in the front setback.

14  Council’s draft conditions propose a widening of the driveway to provide more space for landscaping. I find it appropriate to vary the width of the driveway. The proposed design includes a 500mm width planting bed along the southern side of the driveway that I find can be improved with the opportunity to vary the width opposite the garages in areas that are not affected by vehicle turning movements.

15  Taken together, the landscape changes are intended to improve the ‘balance’ of canopy tree shade, outdoor deck areas and utility space in the secluded private open space areas, the front setback and along the driveway.

16  The three double storey dwellings in the proposed development are generally 7 metres in height, with brick face work and low pitched roof forms. As such, I consider the style of the proposal is not antagonistic to the surrounding development. The proposed design does, however, depart from the character of the area in the use of a light weight contemporary rendered finish for the first floor. To my observation, this material is not complimentary to the existing dwellings in this part of Huntingdale Road. I find a more appropriate design response can be achieved with the use of a horizontal weatherboard finish on the exterior of the upper level.

17  In consideration of overdevelopment, I note the three dwellings have good upper level separation and are set back from the side and rear boundaries from 1.8 metres to 6 metres, with side boundary setbacks generally 4 to 5 metres. The minimum front set back is 7.6 metres.

18  The back yard spaces on either side of the proposed development contain abutting sheds and garages and as mentioned earlier, the land to rear is currently vacant. These interfaces do not have the same sensitivity that might arise, for example, from a consistent pattern of open garden spaces.

19  In relation to the subject site, I find the double storey form at the rear of the proposed development is acceptable in the context of development on the adjoining properties and the vacant land to the east.

20  Taking into consideration the double storey height of the proposal, the spacing of dwellings and the building setbacks, I find the proposal provides an acceptable neighbourhood character response, subject to the use of a more sympathetic exterior finish on the upper level of the three dwellings and detailed landscape design for the open spaces and driveway.

Does the proposed design provide an acceptable response to the relevant objectives and standards of ResCode at Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme?

21  In reviewing the proposed design against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 of the planning scheme, I find the degree of compliance is acceptable, however, Council submits the proposed design is inadequate with respect to some of the standards. I consider aspects of Council’s criticism are valid and therefore, I address each in turn. Specifically, the issues of concern to Council relate to;

·  B5 and B26 - Dwelling entry

·  B18 - Walls on boundaries

·  B28 - Private open space

·  B29 - Solar access to open space

·  B30 – Storage

·  B31 - Design detail

Dwelling entry

22  The proposed dwellings each have an entry oriented to the driveway along the southern side of the site. Council submits the development;

.. should seek to provide each dwelling with its own sense of identity by orienting dwellings to the front street.

23  I accept that it is important that each dwelling can be individually identified; this is conventionally achieved in a multi-dwelling arrangement by locating entrances toward the street. In this instance, each entrance has an entry porch, with a centrally located front door facing the driveway in the case of dwellings 1 and 2 and for dwelling 3, at the south west corner of the building, also facing the driveway. The entrances are quite prominent, easily identified and provide shelter over the entry door. They are not ‘tucked away’ in the sense of failing to achieve the ‘sense of personal address’ sought at standard B26. Each entrance is also associated with space for landscaping. Therefore, I find dwelling entry design is acceptable.